Google Fiber will hit 89% of neighborhoods, some poor areas miss out

180 of 202 Kansas City "fiberhoods" met sign-up goals.

Signing up for Google Fiber isn't simply a matter of scheduling an installation appointment. Google divided up the two Kansas Cities (Missouri and Kansas) into 202 "fiberhoods" of about 800 homes each, and asked residents to preregister and plunk down a $10 fee to express their interest. To qualify, neighborhoods had to reach goals of anywhere between 5 percent and 25 percent of residents signing up.

Google announced yesterday that it has closed preregistration, with 180 out of the 202 fiberhoods meeting their goals. People living in one of these neighborhoods can sign up starting September 13. For $70 per month, residents can get Gigabit Internet, and for $120 per month, they can get Gigabit Internet service plus TV. There's even a "free" Internet tier with 5Mbps down and 1Mbps up. The free tier requires a one-time construction fee of $300 or 12 monthly payments of $25, but Google guarantees the free service for seven years.

Pre-registration began July 26. Google said there was a big rush in registrations as the deadline neared, with 63 neighborhoods qualifying in the past week. Sign-ups have turned into something of a "civic cause," the New York Timesreported, because so many predominantly black neighborhoods have low Internet usage rates. Affluent areas signed up much more quickly than poor ones. "With almost all of Kansas City, Kan., including low-income areas, achieving their sign-up goals, Google’s focus over the weekend was here in Missouri, where it worked with community groups to register people," the Times said.

The tally of neighborhoods qualifying will rise a bit, as Google is still processing some final requests from apartment buildings and condos. Google will announce on Thursday the order in which each neighborhood will see Fiber construction. "Fiberhoods" that didn't qualify will have to wait until sometime next year for another chance.

Promoted Comments

Depends on quite a few things. Gigabit internet is so fast that old computers with 100Mbit NICs and slow hard drives are likely to bottleneck the maximum speed. The server you connect to is also a big factor as many top out at 100Mbit.

@gotung no kidding right? I want to slap every person who would let an opportunity pass them up like this. Sure it's overkill, but I can't tell you how many people I know who would pay double the rates Google is charging for that kind of bandwidth! (me included)

The many meanings of free:* plus shipping and handling* free for 7 years with $300 construction fee which can be financed over 12 month for 0% interest* ...

Oh and hopefully all bits on the Google Fiber net are free as in freedom (unencumbered by traffic shaping to avoid competition with the other tiers of service an ISP does offer, unfiltered and uncapped, other then by the advertised service limit).

I just love how advertisement is allowed to bend the truth about costs/prices/features.

@gotung no kidding right? I want to slap every person who would let an opportunity pass them up like this. Sure it's overkill, but I can't tell you how many people I know who would pay double the rates Google is charging for that kind of bandwidth! (me included)

Count me in. I'd easily pay double what google is charging. And it's not like I live in the sticks. My house is right in the middle of a top 30 metro area. And I still can only get 3% of the speed for the same price.

While I have decent speed (though nowhere near gigabit) Internet at roughly the same price, I would love to see this shake up the industry and force the existing companies to improve performance and reduce costs.

"Sign-ups have turned into something of a "civic cause," the New York Times reported, because so many predominantly black neighborhoods have low Internet usage rates."

Heck. They don't have any books on the shelves either! Should we stack some free ones on the doorstep in the hope that they'll be read?

At one point a few years ago, I was in a line of work where I did in-home sales presentations in hundreds of black homes and apartments. The one boggling thing I noticed about poor black households was the near total lack of reading material.

You can bring horses to water -but you can't force them to drink. Sad to say, but IMHO, stringing fiber in these areas and an ONT at each residence (with a probable subscriber usage rate of <5%) -would be a total waste of infrastructure and money.

Depends on quite a few things. Gigabit internet is so fast that old computers with 100Mbit NICs and slow hard drives are likely to bottleneck the maximum speed. The server you connect to is also a big factor as many top out at 100Mbit.

Seriously though, it is an obnoxious troll complaint. You get tree trunks in the sticks, others get fiber trunks in the city. People don't complain in an article about a new hiking trail in West Virginia that they're "still waiting for a decent [urban] solution".

You can bring horses to water -but you can't force them to drink. Sad to say, but IMHO, stringing fiber in these areas and an ONT at each residence (with a probable subscriber usage rate of <5%) -would be a total waste of infrastructure and money.

It wasn't that long ago that people said the same thing about electricity, and it won't be too long before broadband internet is considered as essential as clean water and reliable power. Even if only 5% of the "horses" drink, and they grow up to community leaders, that improves the entire community. This is obviously a complex issue, but let's not forget that we're talking about 1000 Mbps internet here. That's revolutionary, and everyone (regardless of income level) deserves a chance to be a part of that.

Sign-ups have turned into something of a "civic cause," the New York Times reported, because so many predominantly black neighborhoods have low Internet usage rates.

I have to wonder the reason the New York Times points out these neighborhoods were predominantly black. I mean does it really matter? The neighborhoods in question already have low internet usage rates, when those rates increase, I am sure Google will offer their services in those neighborhoods.

The only story I see here is that Google Fiber is going to hit nearly 90% of the neighborhoods. Outside of that, i don't really see the story here, neighborhoods with low internet usage are not missing a great deal by not signing up for Google Fiber.

fuzzytux wrote:

That's revolutionary, and everyone (regardless of income level) deserves a chance to be a part of that.

Only if they are interested in it.

If the neighborhoods who did not qualify did not even have 5% of residents interested in this service it, why should the other 90% pay to get service to them, Google should offer to expand the service when they reach the 5-25% sign-up goal.

I fully understand the benefit of getting internet access to these neighborhoods. I also understand that as some point, a person that is not interested in the internet, is unlikely to even have the devices to connect to the internet.

Now this person can either be in a postion of being able to afford a low-cost electronic device capable of connecting to the internet and simply not purchasing one or they cannot afford one. In the case of not being able to afford the device we should work toward increasing their income, not giving them free electronic devices, which require internet they cannot afford.

Seriously though, it is an obnoxious troll complaint. You get tree trunks in the sticks, others get fiber trunks in the city. People don't complain in an article about a new hiking trail in West Virginia that they're "still waiting for a decent [urban] solution".

Yeah they do. It's not a hiking trail urbanites clamor for it's a "fitness trail." It's certainly not a troll complaint. While it makes sense to build up where more people will benefit it's also a valid question to ask for a solution for those that choose to live in the "sticks."

The many meanings of free:* plus shipping and handling* free for 7 years with $300 construction fee which can be financed over 12 month for 0% interest* ...

Oh and hopefully all bits on the Google Fiber net are free as in freedom (unencumbered by traffic shaping to avoid competition with the other tiers of service an ISP does offer, unfiltered and uncapped, other then by the advertised service limit).

I just love how advertisement is allowed to bend the truth about costs/prices/features.

They've stated the requirements from day 1 for the free package. I assume you have a truly free method for delivering fiber to neighborhoods in your city without having to charge? Something that would put Google to shame, hmm? I also assume you have a wealth of knowledge on the cost of simply wiring a neighborhood with fiber, as well as deep knowledge on the costs for the equipment being installed in the homes to terminate the fiber.

Sign-ups have turned into something of a "civic cause," the New York Times reported, because so many predominantly black neighborhoods have low Internet usage rates.

I have to wonder the reason the New York Times points out these neighborhoods were predominantly black. I mean does it really matter? The neighborhoods in question already have low internet usage rates, when those rates increase, I am sure Google will offer their services in those neighborhoods.

The only story I see here is that Google Fiber is going to hit nearly 90% of the neightborhoods. Outside of that, i don't really see the story here, neighborhoods with low internet usage are not missing a great deal by not signing up for Google Fiber.

It's this train of thought that works against fixing the problems in areas like this. Why would you ignore an influencing factor simply because it's an uncomfortable topic?

These neighborhoods are predominantly black. Why? What can be done about this?

Sign-ups have turned into something of a "civic cause," the New York Times reported, because so many predominantly black neighborhoods have low Internet usage rates.

I have to wonder the reason the New York Times points out these neighborhoods were predominantly black. I mean does it really matter? The neighborhoods in question already have low internet usage rates, when those rates increase, I am sure Google will offer their services in those neighborhoods.

The only story I see here is that Google Fiber is going to hit nearly 90% of the neightborhoods. Outside of that, i don't really see the story here, neighborhoods with low internet usage are not missing a great deal by not signing up for Google Fiber.

It's this train of thought that works against fixing the problems in areas like this. Why would you ignore an influencing factor simply because it's an uncomfortable topic?

These neighborhoods are predominantly black. Why? What can be done about this?

I don't think you understand the point of my comment.

The neighborhoods being predominantly black is not the reason they didn't meet their signup goals. They didn't meet those goals because there wasn't enough interest. This is either because a majority of the residents are unable to afford the internet or they are simply not interested in it.

I would like to see the average age group of these neighborhoods. If we are talking about the older population it might make sense the reason they didn't reach their goals. If we are talking about people who simply cannot afford it, then lets work on increasing their average income, so they are able to afford it.

If somebody is unable to afford the $10 fee then they are not in a positon to purchase any of the plans nor are they likely to have a computer, or even have the interest of having home internet. I never said it was an uncomfortable topic, I simply said, in the context of this story it actually isn't even likely factor of the reason the signup rate wasn't achieved.

Furthermore...

Quote:

According to the announcement post, neighborhoods that failed to qualify for the service in the first round of registrations will be able to try again in "a future rally sometime next year""

So they are not blocked from being able to signup. The neighborhoods who didn't signup were unable to afford the $10 fee, and if this was the case, were unable to afford the $300 for the free internet. I just don't understand the reason this fact is a big deal, they are poor, we should work on that problem not give them internet they cannot even afford. I am more then aware there are families in this country that $10 is the difference between being able to afford dinner and not being able to afford dinner. We should worry about making sure they have safe housing and food on the table before they have internet to thier house which isn't even likely to have a computer. If these households were unable to afford the $10 fee they certainly were going to be unable to afford the $25/month for 12 months for the free internet option.

I can't help but think that $300 up front, or even $25 a month for a year, is a fairly big expense for families in the poorest neighborhoods.

$300 divided by 7 years divided by 12 months is $3.57 per month. If the object is to get internet access to the poorest neighborhoods, perhaps just charging a flat $4 or $5 per month for 5Mbps/1Mbps would be more economically palatable.

On the other hand, that still doesn't include the cost of a cheap computer and monitor.

It is hard to understand how those on the lower income scale can afford to waste $10 to "register" for the right to pay a "$300 construction fee (one time or $25/mo for 12 mo)" for "FREE" internet service that is a) not currently available and b) 1Mbps SLOWER (5Mbps vs. 6Mbps) than the currently available AT&T option** in the area.

** Details from the AT&T service quote page for an address in Kansas City, MO (for zip 64111):

AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet Elite - D - 6.0 Mbps• $24.95/mo. for 12 months with a 12 month term commitment (new Internet customers only) • Get an additional $5.00 off per month with the purchase of AT&T Home Phone Service• At the end of 12 months, the regular full monthly rate of $43.00 for Elite - D will apply• 50% off wireless gateway ($50 value) after rebate for new Internet customers with new or existing AT&T Wireless or AT&T | DIRECTV. Online redemption required• AT&T Wi-Fi Basic Included for Internet on the go• You will receive a separate AT&T bill and confirmation letter for this service

It's this train of thought that works against fixing the problems in areas like this. Why would you ignore an influencing factor simply because it's an uncomfortable topic?

These neighborhoods are predominantly black. Why? What can be done about this?

I don't think you understand the point of my comment.

The neighborhoods being predominantly black is not the reason they didn't meet their signup goals. They didn't meet those goals because there wasn't enough interest. This is either because a majority of the residents are unable to afford the internet or they are simply not interested in it.

I would like to see the average age group of these neighborhoods. If we are talking about the older population it might make sense the reason they didn't reach their goals. If we are talking about people who simply cannot afford it, then lets work on increasing their average income, so they are able to afford it.

If somebody is unable to afford the $10 fee then they are not in a positon to purchase any of the plans nor are they likely to have a computer, or even have the interest of having home internet. I never said it was an uncomfortable topic, I simply said, in the context of this story it actually isn't even likely factor of the reason the signup rate wasn't achieved.

Maybe it is because they are predominantly black though, maybe there should have been an alternate advertising strategy involved for areas like this.

Just because it's a predominantly black area doesn't necessarily mean they lack the $10. There really are cultural differences between predominantly black areas, white area, hispanic areas, etc etc... advertising to each would likely require different strategies.

Sign-ups have turned into something of a "civic cause," the New York Times reported, because so many predominantly black neighborhoods have low Internet usage rates.

I have to wonder the reason the New York Times points out these neighborhoods were predominantly black. I mean does it really matter? The neighborhoods in question already have low internet usage rates, when those rates increase, I am sure Google will offer their services in those neighborhoods.

The only story I see here is that Google Fiber is going to hit nearly 90% of the neightborhoods. Outside of that, i don't really see the story here, neighborhoods with low internet usage are not missing a great deal by not signing up for Google Fiber.

It's this train of thought that works against fixing the problems in areas like this. Why would you ignore an influencing factor simply because it's an uncomfortable topic?

These neighborhoods are predominantly black. Why? What can be done about this?

Did the New York Times note that those predominantly black neighborhoods all had the lowest fiberhood signup requirements as well? Google did their part in trying to increase the likelihood of those neighborhoods signing up.

Those areas are predominantly black due to anti-minority rules in neighborhoods west of Troost Ave. Homes and apartments west of Troost have a significantly higher valuation than homes on the eastern side. Factor in an education system which hasn't been accredited in years, and you have a perfect cycle that keeps the poor people to the East of that dividing line.

My point here is that anyone who knows Kansas City knows those areas were never going to be in the first round of Google Fiber anyways. Google did what they could, and did get a few of the neighborhoods signed up, but it was definitely an uphill battle. And it's a 150 year old problem that won't get wiped in 3 months.

While I have decent speed (though nowhere near gigabit) Internet at roughly the same price, I would love to see this shake up the industry and force the existing companies to improve performance and reduce costs.

I started getting promotions from Time Warner about lower cost package deals the morning after the Google announcement. Ever since then they've been hammering out mailing ads and TV commercials about great "promotional" rates for their triple play packages. TWC/ATT/Comcast are worried out here, no doubt. Pulling the plug on TWC is going to be so sweet...

Re: poor neighborhoods. One of the big things that Google found when they surveyed the city for Internet usage is that most poorer households don't have a computer let alone Internet access. So for them the cost of Internet access is not just the $300 connection fee for the free package but another $200 - $300 for a cheap computer to use it. For many of these households the free package may be tempting but they can't put $200 - $600 up front just for Internet and still eat.

Sadly most of the neighborhoods missing out are east of Troost Ave. on the Missouri side. This means that not only do their residents miss out, for the time being, but their local civic institutions like libraries, community centers, and schools miss out on free Internet. Ironic since our public library system is where many folks in these areas that can't afford the Internet go for free access. I've heard rumors that Google may wire up these places anyway but that's just a rumor.

I can't help but think that $300 up front, or even $25 a month for a year, is a fairly big expense for families in the poorest neighborhoods.

$300 divided by 7 years divided by 12 months is $3.57 per month. If the object is to get internet access to the poorest neighborhoods, perhaps just charging a flat $4 or $5 per month for 5Mbps/1Mbps would be more economically palatable.

On the other hand, that still doesn't include the cost of a cheap computer and monitor.

I would think from a legal stand-point, Google can't claim a service is free if you pay monthly fees. Now if you pay the connection cost up-front and not charge anything after, then they can probably claim that the service is free, just not the install.

Even then, from what I've read, it's closer to $600-$900 per house to connect, so $300 is getting away cheap. Google is probably losing money on each install at that point. I guess they make it up with the other parts of the city contract like free electricity/etc.

Another view point is if Google doesn't set the entry barrier high enough, they might get trolled by people who will never use the service, but will sign-up just because it's completely free or insanely cheap. I'm thinking of Valve's "GreenLight" troll issue and having to add in a $100 fee just to discourage trolling.

Maybe it is because they are predominantly black though, maybe there should have been an alternate advertising strategy involved for areas like this.

Just because it's a predominantly black area doesn't necessarily mean they lack the $10. There really are cultural differences between predominantly black areas, white area, hispanic areas, etc etc... advertising to each would likely require different strategies.

What cultural differences exactly?

The kids in these poorest neighborhoods are just kids, they know what they are missing at home, they are aware of how the world is changing around them. Their parents are like any other parents, they go to work, and try to provide for their family. The households with older family members 60+ are like any other household with older members, there is a low technology foothold on the older generation, of any cultural household.

Based on the actual annoucement from Google it sounds like there are additional reasons why these neighborhoods didn't meet their goals, and it has nothing to do with the neighborhoods being predominantly black. Because the poor white, hispanic, and asian families in these same neighborhoods also likely couldn't afford the costs either.

It's this train of thought that works against fixing the problems in areas like this. Why would you ignore an influencing factor simply because it's an uncomfortable topic?

These neighborhoods are predominantly black. Why? What can be done about this?

Did the New York Times note that those predominantly black neighborhoods all had the lowest fiberhood signup requirements as well? Google did their part in trying to increase the likelihood of those neighborhoods signing up.

Those areas are predominantly black due to anti-minority rules in neighborhoods west of Troost Ave. Homes and apartments west of Troost have a significantly higher valuation than homes on the eastern side. Factor in an education system which hasn't been accredited in years, and you have a perfect cycle that keeps the poor people to the East of that dividing line.

My point here is that anyone who knows Kansas City knows those areas were never going to be in the first round of Google Fiber anyways. Google did what they could, and did get a few of the neighborhoods signed up, but it was definitely an uphill battle. And it's a 150 year old problem that won't get wiped in 3 months.

@gotung no kidding right? I want to slap every person who would let an opportunity pass them up like this. Sure it's overkill, but I can't tell you how many people I know who would pay double the rates Google is charging for that kind of bandwidth! (me included)

Count me in. I'd easily pay double what google is charging. And it's not like I live in the sticks. My house is right in the middle of a top 30 metro area. And I still can only get 3% of the speed for the same price.

Yep ... me too. I'm at 5% for 2x the cost. In the freaking San Francisco Bay Area. We're a goddamn tech hub, and that's still all I can get.

Maybe it is because they are predominantly black though, maybe there should have been an alternate advertising strategy involved for areas like this.

Just because it's a predominantly black area doesn't necessarily mean they lack the $10. There really are cultural differences between predominantly black areas, white area, hispanic areas, etc etc... advertising to each would likely require different strategies.

Re: poor neighborhoods. One of the big things that Google found when they surveyed the city for Internet usage is that most poorer households don't have a computer let alone Internet access. So for them the cost of Internet access is not just the $300 connection fee for the free package but another $200 - $300 for a cheap computer to use it. For many of these households the free package may be tempting but they can't put $200 - $600 up front just for Internet and still eat.

My wife worked as a cashier in a Walmart. She noticed that *most* people who used foodstamps in her lines actually had smart phones and would often purchase steak/shrimp/lobster, then pull out a credit-card for all other purchased, like BluRay movies and LCD monitors.

I am many times torn between wanting welfare to help those in trouble and just getting rid of it because of the huge amount of waste it has.

Or the 3rd option... send these obvious abusers of the system into hard labor camps.

It's this train of thought that works against fixing the problems in areas like this. Why would you ignore an influencing factor simply because it's an uncomfortable topic?

These neighborhoods are predominantly black. Why? What can be done about this?

Did the New York Times note that those predominantly black neighborhoods all had the lowest fiberhood signup requirements as well? Google did their part in trying to increase the likelihood of those neighborhoods signing up.

Those areas are predominantly black due to anti-minority rules in neighborhoods west of Troost Ave. Homes and apartments west of Troost have a significantly higher valuation than homes on the eastern side. Factor in an education system which hasn't been accredited in years, and you have a perfect cycle that keeps the poor people to the East of that dividing line.

My point here is that anyone who knows Kansas City knows those areas were never going to be in the first round of Google Fiber anyways. Google did what they could, and did get a few of the neighborhoods signed up, but it was definitely an uphill battle. And it's a 150 year old problem that won't get wiped in 3 months.

"The Plaza still seems segregated even though so many years have passed since Nichols was actively working in Kansas City. There is still an imaginary line drawn down Troost Road.

An article published in the Kansas City Star this year talks about the "curse of the covenant" and how it still haunts our modern day city. Many Kansas Citians do not even realize that more than twelve hundred documents involving thousands of homes still contain racist language barring Blacks, Jews and others. Many of the covenants were never removed even though they were deemed unconstitutional as far as fifty years ago. The writers of the covenants made them so they would be nearly impossible to have amended. Segregation might seem outdated, but it is not. There is a lot more integration now than there was during the 1940's, but we are still separated somewhat. (paraphrase of KC STAR, CURSE OF COVENANT)"

Did the New York Times note that those predominantly black neighborhoods all had the lowest fiberhood signup requirements as well? Google did their part in trying to increase the likelihood of those neighborhoods signing up.

Those areas are predominantly black due to anti-minority rules in neighborhoods west of Troost Ave. Homes and apartments west of Troost have a significantly higher valuation than homes on the eastern side. Factor in an education system which hasn't been accredited in years, and you have a perfect cycle that keeps the poor people to the East of that dividing line.

My point here is that anyone who knows Kansas City knows those areas were never going to be in the first round of Google Fiber anyways. Google did what they could, and did get a few of the neighborhoods signed up, but it was definitely an uphill battle. And it's a 150 year old problem that won't get wiped in 3 months.

At least somebody understands that the fact these neighborhoods being predominantly black is not the reason they didn't meet their goals.

Google isn't able to solve home valuation being low in certain neighborhoods. They simply provided the chance for everyone to sign up. If the surrounding area really cared for their neighbors this easily could be solved through fundrasing programs. These programs wouldn't even need to raise the money to install the fiber, only signup the households for it, then indivdual households could sign up for it.

Google shouldn't have to wave fees. The city government shouldn't have to pay for it.

There are many people that believe you should be good to your neighbour

@Uxorious - That's great for the first year, but what about the next six? In that time, AT&T customers would still be paying $25/month for 6mbps down and Google customers would be paying nothing for 5mbps down. The AT&T plan would cost $1800 more over the seven year projected life of the service. I think I know what deal I would take in that situation.

Google, what about Silicon Valley? You know, the place where your corporate HQ is, and where you got your start. Why do you grace KC with fiber when we're still stuck with DSL or Comcast here in the Valley?

Google, what about Silicon Valley? You know, the place where your corporate HQ is, and where you got your start. Why do you grace KC with fiber when we're still stuck with DSL or Comcast here in the Valley?

Maybe it is because they are predominantly black though, maybe there should have been an alternate advertising strategy involved for areas like this.

Just because it's a predominantly black area doesn't necessarily mean they lack the $10. There really are cultural differences between predominantly black areas, white area, hispanic areas, etc etc... advertising to each would likely require different strategies.

Are you just trolling? How much of that article applies to your average African American in today's american society in Kansas City?

Just to make one thing crystal clear, I never said they couldn't afford the $10 beause they are black, I simply said they are unlikely to afford them.

Bengie25 wrote:

My wife worked as a cashier in a Walmart. She noticed that *most* people who used foodstamps in her lines actually had smart phones and would often purchase steak/shrimp/lobster, then pull out a credit-card for all other purchased, like BluRay movies and LCD monitors.

I am many times torn between wanting welfare to help those in trouble and just getting rid of it because of the huge amount of waste it has.

Or the 3rd option... send these obvious abusers of the system into hard labor camps.

I would argue the following in a case like this.

There is a difference between paying 25-30% interest to purchase food and water then paying for indivual items like BluRay movies and LCD Monitors. As for the smart phones there are programs in this country that offer free mobile cell service, and it is getting to the point, for a very small fee even thse services support smart phones.

Of course as you point out, there is a great deal of abuse in these social programs, and perhaps we should try to cut down on that abuse through education about 25% interest rates through community programs.